Walls are OP

[Art Morte]

Now, I get where the devs were coming from. City defences in Civ V were pretty useless. I understand they wanted to buff them and figured they could make some cool changes to unit dynamics (siege weapons weaker against units but strong against walls, adding siege equipment i.e. battering rams and siege towers, melee units weak against walls...). However, I think they've gone too far. I think walls are over-powered. Both in the damage they deal with the ranged attack and the damage they cause to melee units when attacked. A problem that's compounded by the poor AI basically not knowing what to do with a walled enemy city.

Thoughts?

 

[Cymsdale]

Walls are fine. AI is broken.

 

[greygamer]

Ranged units are broken, multi-hex range makes less and less sense.
Rather I would like ranged units to be classed as support units giving a one tile ranged attack to melee units

 

[jbavon]

I agree with regards to single player. To take a city from a walled city at tech parity you need to:

- Take out opponents main army to get some room to assault
- Set up around a city with 2-3 melee and shutting down the cities ability to heal
- Then bring in 2-3 ranged units
- Hope the opponent again forgets to use its city and encampment bombards
- Keep a bombardment going for 3-4 turns
- Assault with melee

This is an interesting gameplay task for a human player. Expecting the AI to manage all of this is, unfortunately, foolish. Walls/city defense needs to be changed so the AI has a chance of rushing a city like in the early game with unwalled cities (and AI+ mod).

For multiplayer the system is really cool though. I guess. I dont play multiplayer at all.

 

[Siptah]

I agree with regards to single player. To take a city from a walled city at tech parity you need to:

- Take out opponents main army to get some room to assault
- Set up around a city with 2-3 melee and shutting down the cities ability to heal
- Then bring in 2-3 ranged units
- Hope the opponent again forgets to use its city and encampment bombards
- Keep a bombardment going for 3-4 turns
- Assault with melee

This is an interesting gameplay task for a human player. Expecting the AI to manage all of this is, unfortunately, foolish. Walls/city defense needs to be changed so the AI has a chance of rushing a city like in the early game with unwalled cities (and AI+ mod).

For multiplayer the system is really cool though. I guess. I dont play multiplayer at all.

Battering rams and siege towers really make a difference. It is for me much easier with those two units than with ranged units and bombardment.

For OP:
I think that the ranged strike of ancient walls is too strong, and the ranged strike of medieval walls and renaissance walls is too weak. Ancient walls should enable a very weak ranged strike and give the city walls. Then there should be a reason to build the other walls: stronger cities and better attack.

 

[Cymsdale]

If you don't worry so much about keeping your melee at full health, you can just bash them into the walls and take the cities much quicker. Health loss isn't a big deal because after you take the city they can heal back quickly. They heal back in fewer turns than it would take to prepare all that setup.

Pinging the city with ranged and siege units is just a nice-to-have.

 

[greygamer]

If you don't worry so much about keeping your melee at full health, you can just bash them into the walls and take the cities much quicker. Health loss isn't a big deal because after you take the city they can heal back quickly. They heal back in fewer turns than it would take to prepare all that setup.

Pinging the city with ranged and siege units is just a nice-to-have.

Has anyone tried ignoring archery and just going with warriors and (when walls go up) battering ram?. The +10 from Tortoise seems very useful in this regard and you can spam warriors from the start, with a few slingers to kill the enemy army.

 

[Leyrann]

Has anyone tried ignoring archery and just going with warriors and (when wall go up) battering ram?. The +10 from Tortoise seems very useful in this regard and you can spam warriors from the start, with a few slingers to kill the enemy army.

Not to mention, once they get their third promotion, the +10 strength when fighting in a district. That matters. Seriously, with one 4+-promoted Musketman against (I think) medieval walls, I could almost take the city.

 

[jbavon]

If you don't worry so much about keeping your melee at full health, you can just bash them into the walls and take the cities much quicker. Health loss isn't a big deal because after you take the city they can heal back quickly. They heal back in fewer turns than it would take to prepare all that setup.

Pinging the city with ranged and siege units is just a nice-to-have.

I will gladly stand corrected but using melee against the walls usually means losing at least half your health and only do minor damage if you are as advanced as your opponent. But I guess it might work since the AI does not bombard.

Someone mentioned battering rams. Good luck getting the AI to understand and use that concept succesfully. I'm 150 hours in and have still to see it used against me. Again, this is also an interesting concept for multiplayer but it wont work in single player.

For single player to be more challenging against the AI the game needs fewer options and simpler rules for taking cities.

 

[Arent11]

Now, I get where the devs were coming from. City defences in Civ V were pretty useless. I understand they wanted to buff them and figured they could make some cool changes to unit dynamics (siege weapons weaker against units but strong against walls, adding siege equipment i.e. battering rams and siege towers, melee units weak against walls...). However, I think they've gone too far. I think walls are over-powered. Both in the damage they deal with the ranged attack and the damage they cause to melee units when attacked. A problem that's compounded by the poor AI basically not knowing what to do with a walled enemy city.

Thoughts?

Just make walls/cities passive defenders & they are 'fixed'. I never understood how a wall can 'shoot' at enemies. I mean, ok, maybe there is a garrison that defends your city, but if you want to shoot at enemies/make a sortie, you have to place a catapult or archers into your city.

 

[Arent11]

Ranged units are broken, multi-hex range makes less and less sense.
Rather I would like ranged units to be classed as support units giving a one tile ranged attack to melee units

Woah, I just wanted to suggest exactly that. Nice to see that others had exactly the same idea.

That would also fix the movement problems. You could return to have 1 tile/turn movement for slow, but strong infantry, 2 tiles/turn movement for cavalry & 3 tiles/turn movement for later tanks. And you could have *artillery* to shoot 2 hexes. It would define the roles of different unit types much better.

 

[agonistes]

I will gladly stand corrected but using melee against the walls usually means losing at least half your health and only do minor damage if you are as advanced as your opponent. But I guess it might work since the AI does not bombard.

Someone mentioned battering rams. Good luck getting the AI to understand and use that concept succesfully. I'm 150 hours in and have still to see it used against me. Again, this is also an interesting concept for multiplayer but it wont work in single player.

For single player to be more challenging against the AI the game needs fewer options and simpler rules for taking cities.

I see the AI use rams and siege towers frequently. I don't make them myself, it feels like cheating.

There is a thread out there questioning the value of a strong navy... well, I can tell you, a battleship is a good thing to bring to a siege.

Sorry OP, I don't think walls are OP. In fact, I'd love to see all capitals start with ancient walls and have x2 health and strength. I"d like to see all wall power be doubled too (so capitals would be doubled then doubled again). I'd like to see the wall upgrades be stronger and cheaper. The only time I've ever built more than ancient walls, it was just to see what it looked like. The walls cost too much, particularly for the return on the investment. And if you do manage to build them... BANG you get free walls everywhere anyways. Maybe walls should have a bonus to culture when the auto-walls policy drops in? I play on marathon, and even on marathon the auto-walls come waaaay too fast after the last wall upgrade.

If walls were weaker, well, as it is, it only takes one to three turns to take most cities. Maybe that's hyperbole and it takes two to four. Either way, without walls, you could just send an ambassador and say, "Excuse me, might I have your city please? Thank you much, much appreciated, there's a chap. Run along now." *slap in the arse with a newspaper*

 

[Chibisuke]

If you use battering rams the walls come down pretty fast. Build battering rams as soon as they become available.

As for just building warriors, I would only do that with Monty and even then I'll eventually build 2 to 3 archers just to help with taking out armies. But Monty's eagle warriors are OP. Maybe you could get away with it with America if you have the continent bonus. For everyone else though archers are just too good since they allow you to quickly eliminate all defending armies of the AI. They are also great for killing off barb scouts and horsemen.

 

[TamirLenk]

If you don't worry so much about keeping your melee at full health, you can just bash them into the walls and take the cities much quicker. Health loss isn't a big deal because after you take the city they can heal back quickly. They heal back in fewer turns than it would take to prepare all that setup.

Pinging the city with ranged and siege units is just a nice-to-have.

This. Also, I tend to use melee units that are close to their next promotion and take advantage of adjacent enemy farms. Both offer instant heals to mitigate damage from the city defenses.

 

[PYITE]

I think modern walls are OP.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Someone in another thread said that the ranged strength of a city is equal to the ranged strength of the strongest ranged unit it has ever produced. I confirmed it after my Archers got badly hurt when assaulting Egypt after they got their Chariot Archers.

 

[daliwest]

Has anyone tried ignoring archery and just going with warriors and (when walls go up) battering ram?. The +10 from Tortoise seems very useful in this regard and you can spam warriors from the start, with a few slingers to kill the enemy army.

Playing as Norway I never use ranged units to take cities. I use "Turtle" Berserkers with Battering Rams and that's about it. Cities usually go down pretty easy.

/Dali

 

[bladex]

try AI+ and see what AI does to walled cities

 

[jbavon]

try AI+ and see what AI does to walled cities

Im a big fan of AI+ but it mostly helps the AI against unwalled cities. Walled cities seldom fall. I have seen one or two do it though.

 

[liv]

I think modern walls are OP.

A couple of tank armies break them down in one turn. I think they are underpowered if anything. But then again walls should not be the way to protect a modern city (AI needs to build air units)